Forum Replies Created
- March 10, 2016 at 9:30 am #29567
KrioRus has managed to cryopreserve 50 humans, 8 dogs, 7 cats …
Now this is some false advertising, they haven’t managed to revive any of those animals so you cannot really call them cryptopreserved yet.
It’s possible that process that they are using causes some irreversible damage and can be called preservation only in same sense as mummification is.February 23, 2016 at 9:33 am #29483
Just like Marcos called it in his comment on “Why treat gene editing differently in two types of human cells?” article it’s a Pandora box.
However I don’t think it’s possible to not open it just as it wasn’t possible not to create atomic bomb once all knowledge required for it was gathered.
Facing new dangers is just dark side of progress and we simply must learn to deal with them.December 15, 2015 at 8:00 am #29401
You don’t have to worry Marcos, fact that intelligence cannot be tweaked
by genetic modification alone hardly means that it cannot be done at all.
To “max out” such complex trait will have to mix genetics, epigenetics,
embrionic science and correct upbringing.
As for egoistical monkey thinking, I believe that people simply
don’t like to feel obsolete and it’s not feeling that’s easy to
Real dangers of eugenics are, way of measuring complex
traits such as intelligence (IQ test aren’t very good at that) and
fact that humanity last attempt at it had rather grim finale.November 25, 2015 at 7:46 am #29268
Main issue in modern word is not access to information but overflow of it.
Strength of peer reviewed literature is that all articles in it are heavily
scrutinized so you can trust their content.
On open data market you must be much more careful and in case of
research this can even mean that you will have to reproduce experiment to
make sure that described results are correct.
I know that peer review can be unpleasant, however it generally do more
good than harm.
Finally I think that Dr Conboy made mistake of trying to cram all her
conclusions into a single paper while some of them required additional
experiments.November 25, 2015 at 7:19 am #29267
I don’t want to be rude but Dr Danaher basically wastes his time on non-issue.
There are two problems with what he describes.
First there won’t be a problem with unfulfilled need of work because even
if you can live with full automation you hardly will be forced to.
People who have resources can move to some sort of Amish like colonies
where they will live with hard work and as sort of principle.
People that don’t want to go to such extremes can still produce hand made
goods as there probably always will be some demand for those, even if
automation will produce better alternatives.
My second issue with this article is that Dr Danaher, probably because of
his background in philosophy instead in for example sociology, focuses
on his tough experiment and don’t even glimpse over real world data.
Unlike cloning,immortality or sentient AI issue of reducing need for certain
jobs due to automation is hardly hypothetical.
In most observed cases people whose jobs ware automated were less focused
on “what I’m going to do with so much free time” and more on “how I will
feed my family without income”. I have yet to see government that would
happily announce that due to automation they managed to rise unemployment.November 21, 2015 at 5:56 pm #29232
I’m not optimistic because I think our problems are small.
I’m optimistic because I think our capacity to deal with problems is great.
This is beautiful thing to say and I agree in 100%.
Also I kinda imagine that 10,000 years in the future you will have articles with headlines like :
“Great clock reaches its final chord. Ancient Terrans predicted end of the universe” :D.November 15, 2015 at 5:49 pm #29192
As it seems that article author is not responding to this allow me
to address first issue that you have risen.
In posted abstract complexity was defined as
amount of environmental information that they (organisms) can incorporate into their genomes
In this case when looking from point of individual, like you desired in
your question, there is given complexity from the start (conception) and
it will remain unchanged* till the end (death).
You see genetics don’t care to much about individual lives and changes,
including rise of complexity level, happen during generation change and
are usually analyzed from the point of population.
However if we won’t limit ourselves to genetic level there is some hope
for individuals :).
We can now define complexity as
amount of environmental information that organisms can incorporate and
pass to others
This definition means that we have both genetic and cognitive information as
in case of humans (and most animals with larger brains) learned experience
can be taught to others.
So you can rise you complexity by learning from experience and from others,
this ability of rising one complexity within single lifetime was serious
evolutionary advantage as you can see that most animals you will encounter
have some learning process besides instinct inherited via genes.
Well that was long post, I hope you found it at least bit interesting 🙂
*It’s not really true as there are mutations and other genomic operators that
change your chromosomes, however from point of our definition of complexity
they don’t count.November 12, 2015 at 8:31 am #29181
Our first defense against such scenario would be amount of noise
data in global network.
Any sentient AI would go bonkers after going through fanfiction.net archive.
Just imagine the headlines: “Humanity saved by Star Trek smut” 🙂November 12, 2015 at 7:47 am #29180
I would like to point out two things.
First in evolutionary algorithms population usually have very little
influence on environment if any at all. While in nature such influence is
very strong even in simple cases.
Most extreme example of this are of course humans as high life standard in
first world countries basically “disabled” natural selection in those regions.
The second thing is that in nature evolution also reaches dead ends,
there are not as solid as in computer algorithms however that can be
due to number of variables that natural evolution deals with, that was
even briefly mentioned in this text.October 21, 2015 at 8:16 am #28967
I must disagree with you, or maybe agree with Kurzweil, on this topic.
Having a healthy dose of skepticism towards new ideas is actually a good thing.
Neither stories about flying out uteri stopped development of trains nor
popularity of opinion that Newtonian physics described whole reality stopped Einstein.
However blind trust in fruits progress gave us radium craze and cocaine cough syrup.
We must move forward but it cannot be blind rush, otherwise we can do ourselves more harm than good.
And to finish my argument, double edged sword don’t imply that there is exactly
50% divide between positive and negative consequences, it means that something
can be use for our benefit but if used without care it may as well hurt us.